[情報] Tony Clark承認無觀眾的薪資須重新協商

https://tinyurl.com/ya8e2hyc

MLB has been concerned that the players association has misrepresented the
March 26 agreement to the players by dismissing language that called for new
conversations about economic feasibility if games return without paying
spectators and stating that the issue was settled with a management promise
of prorated salary in the same document.

MLB擔心從近期報導 工會可能沒正確把三月協定的內容傳達給球員

To that end, Halem told The Post in a text, “The one piece of good news out
of [Sunday’s] meeting is that Tony Clark acknowledged that the March
Agreement contemplated another negotiation over player salaries if the 2020
season could not be played in front of fans. We were concerned based on mediareports if players knew that. Tony told us the players were aware that the
March Agreement did not resolve the issue of player salaries in a season
without fans. And he said the players‘ decision to accept nothing less than
100 percent of their prorated salaries was due to the risks of playing the
season, not because they were promised it in the March 26 agreement.”

但在協商中Clark表示三月協定確實規定在無觀眾比賽時 薪資須重新協商

球員並不是以為三月協定就決定一切

堅持按比例支薪是基於風險考量

---
怎麼工會說法和前幾天新聞報導的不太一樣?

https://tinyurl.com/y8zqoqyp

Although the proposal would keep a larger proportion of players close to
their whole salaries -- about 65% make $1 million or less and would receive
more than 80% of their prorated salaries -- players young and old objected tothe plan, which they believe runs in contrast to a March agreement with the
league that they believe legislated that players be paid full prorated
salaries upon the return of baseball.

這裡倒是說球員認為三月協定就規定有球打就按比例支薪

到底哪裡出問題了呢?

--

"付的出錢"跟"虧損"沒衝突啊 球團方要提出"現在能付錢"但"未來無法大撒幣簽FA"這樣的意見看不出有矛盾之處 反過來說 三月協定到底有沒有規定薪水要重新協商 這兩種解讀基本互斥 工會指控球團斷章取義他們的意見 我是想不出有什麼斷章取義法 能夠把"不用重新協商"斷章取義成"需要重新協商"